alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 135 (Monday, July 19, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15076]



[[Page 37982]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2, 15, 90, and 95

[ET Docket No. 19-138; Report No. 3176; FR ID 37402]


Petition for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Petition for Reconsideration; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) published a 
document in the Federal Register of July 7, 2021, regarding three 
Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) filed in the Commission's 
rulemaking proceeding. The document did not address the withdrawal of 
one of those petitions. This document corrects that error.

DATES: Oppositions to the Petitions must be filed on or before July 22, 
2021. Replies to an opposition must be filed on or before August 2, 
2021.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, 
Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jamie Coleman, Office of Engineering 
and Technology, (202) 418-2705 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#115b707c78743f527e7d747c707f517772723f767e67"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c78da6aaaea2e984a8aba2aaa6a987a1a4a4e9a0a8b1">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 21-14494, appearing on page 35700 
in the Federal Register on July 7, 2021, the following correction is 
made:
    On page 35700, in the first column, the summary is corrected to 
read ``SUMMARY: Petitions for Reconsideration (Petitions) have been 
filed in the Commission's rulemaking proceeding by Sean T. Conway, on 
behalf of 5G Automotive Association, and Hilary Cain, on behalf of The 
Alliance for Automotive Innovation. A third Petition for 
Reconsideration, filed by Julian Gehman on behalf of The Amateur Radio 
Emergency Data Network, was withdrawn on June 21, 2021.''

    Dated: July 7, 2021.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-15076 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
1 The district court granted Hartfield’s request to p roceed in form

pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1). That status continues on appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(3).

2 On appeal, Hartfield specifically argues that his t rial attorney was ineffective for failing to 1) use Officer Naasz’s p olice report to impeach the officer’s testimony; 2) object to Nurses Schunn’s and Rosenberg’s testimony; 3) use police reports to rebut Detective Trollope’s testimony; 4) object to the prosecutor’s remarks made during closing argument; and 5) recall the victim as a (continued...) 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### June 28, 2005 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH HARTFIELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. CHARLES SIMMONS; PHIL KLINE, Respondents-Appellees. No. 04-3352 (D.C. No. 03-CV-3191-JTM)

(D. Kan.)

ORDER
Before EBEL , McKAY and HENRY , Circuit Judges. Petitioner-Appellant Kenneth Hartfield appeals 1 the district court’s decision denying him habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254, from his Kansas convictions for aggravated kidnapping, aggravated criminal sodomy a nd rape. On appeal, Hartfield argues that 1) there was insufficient evi dence to support any of his convictions; 2) his attorney provided ineffective r epresentation; 2 and 3) the trial2 (...continued)

rebuttal witness. In his § 2254 petition, Hartfiel d argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for 1) allowing Officer Naasz, Dete ctive Trollope and Nurses Schunn and Rosenberg to give false testimony; 2) pe rmitting trial court and prosecutorial misconduct; and 3) failing to call an eyewitness. - 2 - judge failed to hold a hearing to determine whetherHartfield’s seven-year-old daughter’s testimony was in accord with Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-460(dd). To pursue this appeal, Hartfield must first obtain a certificate of appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). To be entitled to a CO A, Hartfield must make a “substantial showing of the d enial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). And to make this showing, he must e stablish that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or for th at matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved [by the districtcourt] in a different manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (quotations omitted). After carefully considering Hartfield’s arguments a nd the entire record, we conclude Hartfield has failed to make a sufficient showing that he is entitled to COA on any of his claims. Therefore, we DISMISS th is appeal.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel Circuit Judge
# C_2019164EN.01003701.xml

| 13.5.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.5.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/37

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d’État (France) lodged on 6 March 2019 — Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation v Compagnie des pêches de Saint-Malo

(Case C-212/19)

(2019/C 164/39)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d’État

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellant: Ministre de l’Agriculture et de l’Alimentation

Respondent: Compagnie des pêches de Saint-Malo

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the Commission’s decision of 14 July 2004 (1) be interpreted as declaring that only the reductions in employers’ contributions are incompatible with the common market, on the ground that the reduction in employees’ contributions do not benefit the undertakings and therefore cannot fall within the scope of Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, or as also declaring the reductions in employees’ contributions to be incompatible? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the Commission’s decision of 14 July 2004 (1) be interpreted as declaring that only the reductions in employers’ contributions are incompatible with the common market, on the ground that the reduction in employees’ contributions do not benefit the undertakings and therefore cannot fall within the scope of Article 107 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, or as also declaring the reductions in employees’ contributions to be incompatible?

| 2. | In the event that the Court finds that the Commission’s decision is to be interpreted as also declaring the reductions in employees’ contributions to be incompatible, must the undertaking be regarded as having received the full amount of those reductions or only a part thereof? In the latter case, how is that part to be assessed? Is the Member State required to order recovery from the employees concerned of the part of the aid from which they benefited? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the Court finds that the Commission’s decision is to be interpreted as also declaring the reductions in employees’ contributions to be incompatible, must the undertaking be regarded as having received the full amount of those reductions or only a part thereof? In the latter case, how is that part to be assessed? Is the Member State required to order recovery from the employees concerned of the part of the aid from which they benefited?

---

(1)  Commission Decision of 14 July 2004 concerning certain aid measures applied by France to assist fish farmers and fishermen (2005/239/EC) (OJ 2005 L 74, p. 49).

---
# C_2021035EN.01004301.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/43

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 December 2020 — Thunus and Others v EIB

(Case T-247/19) (1)

(Civil service - EIB staff - Remuneration - Annual salary adjustment - Legal certainty - Legitimate expectations - Staff consultation - Obligation to state reasons - Proportionality)

(2021/C 35/55)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicants: Vincent Thunus (Contern, Luxembourg) and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Defendant: European Investment Bank (represented by: T. Gilliams, J. Klein and J. Krueck, acting as Agents, and by P.-E. Partsch, lawyer)

Re:

Application under Article 270 TFEU and Article 50a of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union (i) seeking annulment of the decisions contained in the applicants’ pay slips for the month of February 2018 and the subsequent months, applying the decision of the EIB’s Board of Directors of 18 July 2017 defining a new approach to the overall increase in staff salaries applicable to all EIB staff members and the decision of the EIB’s Management Committee of 30 January 2018 fixing the adjustment rate of salaries for the year 2018 to 0,7 %, and (ii) seeking compensation for the damage allegedly suffered by the applicants as a result of those decisions.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr. Vincent Thunus and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB). |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr. Vincent Thunus and the other applicants whose names are set out in the annex to bear their own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Investment Bank (EIB).

---

(1)  OJ C 206, 17.6.2019.

---
# C_2019187EN.01008901.xml

| 3.6.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 187/89 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.6.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 187/89

---

Action brought on 18 April 2019 — Baustoffwerke Gebhart & Söhne v EUIPO (BIOTON)

(Case T-255/19)

(2019/C 187/96)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Baustoffwerke Gebhart & Söhne GmbH & Co. KG (Aichstetten, Germany) (represented by: E. Strauß, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU word mark BIOTON — Application for registration No 17 746 009

Contested decision: Decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 20 February 2019 in Case R 1887/2018-4

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision and allow the EU trade mark application BIOTON to proceed to registration in respect of all the goods applied for; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision and allow the EU trade mark application BIOTON to proceed to registration in respect of all the goods applied for;

| — | in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO with the direction to alter the contested decision and register EU trade mark No 17 746 009 BIOTON; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the alternative, refer the case back to EUIPO with the direction to alter the contested decision and register EU trade mark No 17 746 009 BIOTON;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
**Exhibit 32.2**
**Certification of Periodic Report**
     Pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned officerof Renaissance Learning, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that, to the undersigned’sknowledge:
 (1)  the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31,2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), asapplicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (2)  the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
Dated: May 10, 2005                                                    /s/ Mary T. Minch   Name:  Mary T. Minch   Title:  Vice President-Finance, Chief Financial Officer, and Secretary   
THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT ACCOMPANIES THIS REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002 AND SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE FILED BY THE COMPANY FOR PURPOSES OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACTOF 1934.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 16, 2023

No. 04-22-00716-CR

EX PARTE George TROTTI

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CR7385-W2

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due on January 9, 2023. On January 17, 2023, after no brief or 

motion for extension of time to file the brief was filed, we ordered Appellant to file the brief or a

motion to dismiss by January 27, 2023. We warned Appellant that if he did not comply with our 

order, we would abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court for an abandonment 

hearing. To date, Appellant has not filed the brief or a motion for extension of time to file the 

brief.

We abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial court. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(b)(2); D.L.M. v. State, No. 03-16-00240-CV, 2016 WL 3677806, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin 

July 6, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.). We order the trial court to conduct a hearing in compliance 

with Rule 38.8(b)(3) to answer the following questions: 

(1) Does Appellant desire to prosecute his appeal?

(2) Is Appellant indigent?

(3) If not indigent, has retained counsel abandoned the appeal?

See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(2).

The trial court is further ordered to file supplemental clerk’s and reporter’s records in 

this court, not later than thirty days from the date of this order, which shall include the 

following: (1) a transcription of the hearing and copies of any documentary evidence admitted, 

(2) written findings of fact and conclusions of law, and (3) recommendations addressing the 

above enumerated questions. See id. This court will consider the supplemental records in its 
determination as to whether to proceed without briefs. See id. R. 38.8(b)(4); Parker v. State, 69 

S.W.3d 677, 678 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.).

All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court. 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of February, 2023.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
Order entered November 2 4 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05

- 19

- 01570

- CR JUAN MARTIN PEDROZA, Appellant
V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Cri m inal District Court No. 1 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 18

- 75239

- H

O RDER
We REINSTATE this appeal.
We abated for the t rial court to clarify whether appellant , who ot h er wise
waived h is right of appeal by entering into a plea bargain agreem ent with the State,

was gra n t ed permission to appeal by the trial court

. The trial cour t hel d a hearing , and the supp lemental reporter ’s and supplemental clerk ’s records have been filed.
The records show the trial court allowed a pp e llant to appeal, and a n amendedcertification of appellant ’s right to a ppeal has been filed reflecting the same. The appeal will be submitted in due course.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to the
Honorable Tina Yoo Clint on , Presiding Ju dge, Criminal District Court No. 1 ; and counsel for the parties.

/ s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
# C_2019363EN.01003702.xml

| 28.10.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 363/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.10.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 363/37

---

Order of the General Court of 5 September 2019 — El Corte Inglés v EUIPO — Big Bang (LTC latiendaencasa.es BIG BANG DAY)

(Case T-376/19) (1)

(2019/C 363/48)

Language of the case: Spanish

The President of the Third Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 263, 5.8.2019.

---
# C_2021028EN.01004001.xml

| 25.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/40

---

Judgment of the General Court of 25 November 2020 — UI v Commission

(Case T-362/19) (1)

(Civil service - Officials - Expatriation allowance - Article 4(1)(a) of Annex VII to the Staff Regulations - Refusal to grant the expatriation allowance - Habitual residence - Place where the person’s main occupation is carried on - Five-year reference period)

(2021/C 28/61)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: UI (represented by: J. Diaz Cordova, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: T. Bohr and A.-C. Simon, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action under Article 270 TFEU for (i) annulment of the decision of the Commission’s Office for the Administration and Payment of Individual Entitlements (PMO) of 27 August 2018 refusing to grant the applicant the expatriation allowance and (ii) compensation for the harm that the applicant claims to have suffered as a result.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders UI to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders UI to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 9.9.2019.

---
# C_2020054EN.01003401.xml

| 17.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 54/34 |
| --------- | -- | -------------------------------------- | ------- |

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal d’instance de Rennes (France) lodged on 27 November 2019 — Caisse de Crédit Mutuel Le Mans Pontlieue v OG (Case C-865/19) (2020/C 54/37) Language of the case: French Referring court Tribunal d’instance de Rennes Parties to the main proceedings Applicant: Caisse de Crédit Mutuel Le Mans Pontlieue Defendant: OG Question referred Where the annual percentage rate of charge for credit granted to a consumer is 5.364511%, does the rule laid down in Directives 98/7/EC of 16 February 1998, ( 1 ) 2008/48/EC of 23 April 2008 ( 2 ) and 2014/17/EU of 4 February 2014, ( 3 ) according to which, in the [English] version, ‘The result of the calculation shall be expressed with an accuracy of at least one decimal place. If the figure at the following decimal place is greater than or equal to 5, the figure at this particular decimal place shall be increased by one’, allow it to be concluded that an agreement stating that the annual percentage rate of charge is 5.363% is accurate? ( 1 )  Directive 98/7/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 amending Directive 87/102/EEC for the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions of the Member States concerning consumer credit (OJ 1998 L 101, p. 17). ( 2 )  Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC (OJ 2008 L 133, p. 66). ( 3 )  Directive 2014/17/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 February 2014 on credit agreements for consumers relating to residential immovable property and amending Directives 2008/48/EC and 2013/36/EU and Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 Text with EEA relevance (OJ 2014 L 60, p. 34).

---
#### Jose C. Quintanilla et al., Plaintiffs, and Sonia Martinez, Respondent, v William T. Campion et al., Appellants.

[942 NYS2d 795]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pastoressa, J.), dated March 16, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Sonia Martinez on the ground that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden of showing that the plaintiff Sonia Martinez did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345, 352 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). The defendants failed to adequately address the alleged injuries to Martinez’s elbows and hips *(see Martinez v Yi Zhong Chen,*91 AD3d 834, 835 [2012]). Furthermore, the defendants failed to adequately address Martinez’s claim that she sustained a serious injury under the 90/180-day category of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) *(see Rouach v Betts,*71 AD3d 977 [2010]).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by Martinez, regardless of the sufficiency of Martinez’s opposition papers *(see Martinez v Yi Zhong Chen,*91 AD3d at 835; *Rouach v Betts,*71 AD3d at 977-978). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-10854 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus PAMELA O’GUINN, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 4:03-CR-39-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Pamela O’Guinn on direct appeal has filed a motion to withdraw and a brief pursuant to Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). O’Guinn has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.